Home
» Intelligent Design » Ken Miller and Chicken Little — The Sky Continues to Fall!
Ken Miller and Chicken Little — The Sky Continues to Fall!
| March 1, 2006 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
Perhaps Miller & Co. need to cut to the chase and take out a contract on key ID players. As I recall from the three years I lived in Rhode Island (I went to a prep school there), Providence, the city in which Brown University (Miller’s employer) is located, has an effective mob presence.
“Why is this a big deal?” asked Miller. The answer, according to Miller, is the future of science in America. We are raising a generation of people who are going to be suspicious of science, and that has huge implications for scientific fields. Other countries will be moving ahead in science, leaving the United States behind. “What is at stake is, literally, everything,” said Miller.
76 Responses to Ken Miller and Chicken Little — The Sky Continues to Fall!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I have lots to say in reply, especially regarding DNA and IC. No time now. I’ll post later today.
Mercury, I wanted to make ask a question about the nylon bug example. I personally have absolutely no problem with the idea of descent with modification. I have written in other threads about the fact that natural selection, being simply descriptive of an obvious condition, is really not a controversial thing per se; rather it is controversial to claim that it has the degree of formative power it must have in the Darwinian explanation of evolution. What seems more interesting to me is the question of the mutations themselves, because if the evolutionary process is INTENDED to help creatures unfold and come to fruition (a theistic position) then it would make perfect sense that a creative hand of some sort would act upon the genome when it was beneficial for a certain new trait to come about. This would then allow that trait to spread through a population (which we observe as natural selection) but it would be very much the work of an intelligent agency, rather than a chance event. I know that you do not want to discuss chance with me again! I wasn’t trying to do that…I just noticed that in your last post you said “the line between TE and ID gets pretty thin…” around the question of the who or what engineers changes in the cell. When I read this, I kept thinking, ‘well, this is what our whole argument was about the other day!’ It seems to me that this forms the basis of my entire attraction to ID, that is that it argues, I think persuasively, that the probability of all of the beneficial changes occuring at just the right time and in the right combination with the correct environment is astronomically low without factoring in some kind of directing intelligence. To me, that is basically ALL that ID says. It really cannot do anything other than that, but since I am not a mathematician, nor am I a biologist, I end up trusting other people’s numbers.
Tina,
Mercury is actually a close real life friend of mine, and largely responsible for my conversion to TE being a former follower of YEC and later a follower of Dembski (accepting common descent, but that naturalistic explanations were not sufficient to fully explain how we got to our species). I’ve followed much of your conversation, and I have been thoroughly impressed with the quality of the discourse between the two of you (and a few others).
I thought evolution was an atheistic hypothesis and contrary for the need of God to explain things. After all, if God isn’t needed to explain what we call “creation”, God doesn’t seem needed at all, and I still agree.
Personally, I have a background in mathematics and statistics (and actuarial science for what it’s worth), I’m not as much as an expert as Dembski is, but I can usually understand the principles behind the mathematics he uses in his books and on-line articles. (For example, I understand the difference between Bayesian mathematics and Fischerian mathematics).
I have to say that the mathematics as applied in biology is incredibly complex, and not all that intuitive. Dembski uses examples such as a combination lock to illustrate complex specified information. I agree whole-heartedly with his illustrations, and I agree that CSI can be a good detector of design. However, when applied to evolution, mechanisms such as natural selection are not as easy to mathematically formulate as a combination lock. Not even close. Natural selection allows for multiple failures before a success, yet it is the successful mutations that is stored and reproduced, and the unsuccessful ones that are eliminated. When we try to convert these scenarios into probabilities, I have no idea where to start. I don’t know what the possible combinations are, I don’t know what the possible outcomes are. It seems to come down to intuition.
I think CSI is more successful when applied to cosmology (for example, I recommend the Discovery Institute’s “Privileged Planet”, or Robin Collins on-line essays). At least in cosmology, a failure really is a failure, and isn’t simply eliminated through natural selection. When failures are failures, the mathematics really do simplify, and we are justified in multiplying this probability with that probability to understand how lucky we are to be here.
Back to evolution, I didn’t expect I would end up accepting the theory, as my gut told me this doesn’t just happen by chance, there’s got to be a better explanation. I think the better explanation is that when God created the universe, he fine-tuned it so precisely, and not just the laws of physics, but the laws of chemistry as well, particularly the ones used in the evolutionary mechanisms. God only needs one shot to pocket all the balls on the pool table, and I think creation is evident of how good a job he did. If evolution is true, it strengthens the fine-tuning argument, in my opinion. I don’t know 100% for sure that evolution occurred without divine intervention, but if he didn’t, there’s still a lot of explaining to do.
Mercury,
Thanks for the explanation. I was also wondering about natural selection. If “it’s so difficult to say whether or not a mutation is beneficial or not.”, then what are the criteria for measuring fitness? For natural selection to be a theory, doesn’t the “fittest” class need to be measured by some sort of criteria?
Thanks,
Saxe
We have no idea how a blind, mindless, natural mechanism can produce specified instructional information. We have very good reason to believe it cannot. What we have are just-so stories presented by those with an epistemological axe to grind. Programs require programmers and every instance of specified information that we have, has an intelligent agency as it’s source. There is no reason to suggest that the 4-nucleotide instructional code on the DNA molecule could come about via natural processes [Just ask Dean Kenyon]. Here are some excellent treatments about the computer program we call “DNA”:
http://www.discovery.org/scrip......php?id=63
http://www.firstthings.com/fti.....earcy.html
IC cannot be explained by the Darwinian mechanism. We know that direct Darwinian pathways are impossible and we know that indirect Darwinian pathways are so rediculously improbable that they are effectively impossible. The fact remains that the core of these machines are Irreducible – requiring all components simultaneously to function, remove one and the machine breaks. NS is incapable of building such machines. Co-option of homologous components does not help at all, it just raises more difficulties for the gradualistic model of NS. Telling me that a motorcycle motor can also be used as a blender, does nothing to tell me how that motor evolved into a motorcycle by natural processes. A blind mechanism which can only secure a functional advantage with something already functioning can do nothing to build such machinery. Here is more on the subject:
http://www.designinference.com.....isited.pdf
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/.....inning.htm
Prior to the Cambrian, we had nothing remotely close to the degree of complexity and novelty in body plans which indeed do appear abruptly [for evolutionary time tables] during the Cambrian era. We have unique fossil remains which give no evidence of precursors which gradually evolved into the latter. This fact flies in the face of Darwinian gradualism. At best, you may only gather from the fossil record that there was an intelligently programmed “unfolding” which does a fantastic job of explaining what science actually observes. We most certainly do not see the gradual transitions which Darwinism would predict. More on the Cambrian:
http://www.idthefuture.com/200.....odarw.html
http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....038;id=639
http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....38;id=2177
Let me point out that Natural Selection is very accurately described as the “gradualistic Darwinian Mechanism”. And let me suggest that you have placed entirely too much faith in this mechanism. A mechanism which has only been observed bringing out trivial adaptive change within a species. It is an extrapolation to suggest that the same mechanism that is responsible for the size and shape of the Finch’s beak, is also responsible for the Finch. Rather than the evidence I have cited demonstrating that a designer helps “creation along to get over hurdles”, it is simply artifacts we have thus far been able to determine which are the result of a designing intelligence. At this stage in the game, I am thoroughly unconvinced that Natural Selection is capable of anything beyond the status quo. It can only shape that which already exists and is already functional. It is not creative. It is a mechanism which Darwin proposed as a designer-substitute.
I agree that the miracle of creation is a sufficient testimony. I think your error is in assuming that the relics of design which he has allowed us to have a glimpse of (and marvel over) somehow suggest flaws or limitations. And if we begin with a Biblical premise, we have to view this creation as fallen and therefore flawed and yearning for it’s redemption, anyway. So, I would prefer to focus on these exciting windows into God’s engineering (even if we are viewing these relics after eons of decay due to the Fall).
Mercury, I am well pleased with your responses to my ["YEC's Advocate"] questions regarding the Genesis account.
And this is, in fact, the direction I’ve been leaning, for the very reasons you cited. It’s exciting to see what is being communicated when we dig a little deeper into the text. 
Having said that, I do think that there remain some compelling counter-points from from those who hold to the literalist view of those passages, points which I’m not willing to dismiss quite yet. I think my study on this continues, even though I pretty much share your position.
[I'd love to hear Sal's views on this]
Though I strongly disagree about your Darwinian views, I like what you have to say on the Genesis issue.
Paul Brand, thanks for the input. I think it is interesting that you say that ultimately the probability question seems to come down to intuition. If so, then my conviction that intuition, and not intellect, is the voice of the human spirit is once again reconfirmed. The problem is that intuition and intellect should not be in conflict, but in a harmonious relation in which the intuition LEADS and intellect FOLLOWS. What exists today is a gross distortion of this natural, God-created harmony. Today the intellect so completely dominates every human endeavor, and being strictly material in both origin and outlook, it systematically narrows and diminishes the inner perceptive capacity. This is my view of original sin. This is also why we find ourselves in the depressing condition wherein our best scientists assure use that our overwhelming intuition of design in nature is just a delusion which has been selected for by chance! I think the main problem I have with the TE position which Mercury and you have now made so clear to me is that it seems to be basically the material laws of the material creation which you feel to be adequate, when it is assumed that these laws were sculpted by God. In my view this leaves a gap, which i tried to address in a previous post, since matter itself is just cold dead matter. I think even the Biblical narrative points to this in the distinction which is made between forming the man and breathing into him life. THis seems, (and I definitely take this creation story as the single most beautiful and powerful allegory ever written) to indicate the necessity to introduce a ‘life force’ or substance of a higher, more refined nature, into the physical form. If this is the case, this would indicate that indeed a constant supply of regenerative creative light, a constant reenactment of ‘let there be light’ would be necessary to sustain life in the sphere of dead matter. I wonder if this has anything to do with the thermodynamics issue.
Another question I had for Mercury (or now you) is I was wondering if you have any mental picture which you make for yourselves which might illustrate your belief that God can intervene in material life. How? Is this a physicalization of God and his will? Is there an intermediary energy which God makes use of? Or are these instances of intervention also essentially lawfully preordained?
I think the important thing to note, even if you take the position posited by Mercury, is that at some specific point in past, a “spiritual transaction”, if you will, occured in which humans fell out of fellowship with the creator.
Even if you embrace Adam as “humanity”.
Hi Tina,
Thanks for your comments.
I’ll elaborate a little bit more on my “intuition” comment. What I’m saying is that we seem to be limited to a qualitative analysis of whether naturalistic processes are sufficient to explain the complexity and diversity in life we observe. A quantitative analysis is virtually impossible. As well, our qualitative analysis is extremely limited, as we don’t have the necessary information to understand whether there could be naturalistic explanations for things such as the bacterial flagellum. Intelligent design is not a very forceful argument, if it were limited to saying things such as “we have no natural explanation for this, therefore we infer an intelligent designer.” The design inference ought to be more rigorous than this. It has to be able to eliminate all natural explanations, including the ones we haven’t thought of yet. I use the word “intuition” because the information we have is too limited to make a convincing conclusion, but we do the best we can with the available information we have.
You also said “matter itself is just cold dead matter.” I think it may be a lot more than this. Particles form into life, and this simple fact itself tells me that particles are very special, and are necessarily fine-tuned for life. I think TEs and IDs can agree on this point. Perhaps God designed matter in such a way that it has properties that allow for the potential of life, and who knows, maybe even individual consciousness. My intuition tells me that particles with these properties don’t just appear out of nothing through a quantum accident.
I realize my comments are speculative, and as I noted before, I do not rule out intelligent intervention in the course of biological development. Essentially, I’m not myself a biologist, and I’m not very much qualified to have a well-respected opinion.
Anyway, I’m a TE for a combination of [perhaps] two reasons:
1)TE is a more commonly held position amongst biologists, including theistic and Christian biologists. I need very compelling reasons to go against the opinion of the vast majority who are experts in that field. At this point, I have no sufficiently compelling reasons, neither scientific nor theological. I can question it to the extent that I am an expert, that is in probabilistic analysis, but I don’t have enough established information to do a probability calculation.
2)I think our intuition that life is designed is well justified. The only difference between an ID and my own position, is that I believe that the design occurred at the Big Bang, and not ex nihilo along the way. I find this to be a theologically and philosophically compelling point of view. It’s speculation, but it is speculation that is consistent with the character of the God I worship and believe in. It is also a position that I find is compatible with Scripture.
My one concern with biological ID, is that it seems to minimize how miraculous nature itself is, which is where I think ID would be and is most effective. Let’s show the world that the inherent physical and chemical properties of the universe themselves are very well suited for life. I think atheistic naturalism is not very compelling in explaining why the properties of nature are so beautiful and so accomodating to life. Theistic methodological naturalism is much more compelling in my opinion.
Paul Brand, you wrote “the inherent physical and chemical properties of the universe themselves are very well suited for life” Like I said before, I agree in essence with TEs about the design of life being much larger and more profound than individual instances of tinkering, although I believe such tinkering occurs, not as a direct result of God, but of the servants who carry out His Will. I identified myself in a previous post as being a monotheist who is also an animist, entirely without conflict. The reason I restate this is because for me it completely resolves the dilemna of ‘does it all unfold lawfully or does tinkering go on” There is, for me, no dilemna. The laws of creation contain the basic information for life, but the specifics have to be worked out at every level. An analogy would be to a potter, who wishes to make a pot. He has, in his mind, the image of a pot of the perfect shape and dimensions, but in order to manifest that pot in matter, he must apply his IDEA to the conscious manipulation of clay. He knows the properties of clay, and the limits of its manipulation, etc. Similarly, I envision a God who contains all, and wills all into being, but this will must be put into effect. The animism of ancient religions is essentially a recognition that conscious entities are active in the manipulation of the creative forces of matter. I know its a minority view, but it resolves the above dilemna, and also makes sense spiritually, since it doesn’t require me to believe that everyone before the monotheists was crazy and spiritually delusional!
Thanks for the clarification on the probability stuff. I get from what you are saying that there are too many variables at play at any given moment to make very precise statements. But do the increasing number of variables always tend in favor of making chance more probable than design as an explanation?
Tina,
I hadn’t read the entire conversation yet between you and Mercury, and thank you for restating your beliefs, I was unaware of your religious beliefs, and so obviously, my conceptions of God may not be applicable to your religious belief system.
Regarding your last question, I don’t think it is a chance vs design issue. I think there is a valid argument for design, but I would focus more on the idea that the evolutionary mechanisms are possible because of design, not that the evolutionary mechanisms are not sufficiently competent on their own. It’s really a design vs design issue. When did God do his tinkering? That’s where we disagree.
I believe in chance to the degree that it helps explain diversity. It helps explain why there are so many successful branches in the evolutionary tree, and not just one. Quantum mechanics suggests that there are really chance probabilities with such things as whether a particle gets reflected by a mirror, or if it goes right through. With genetic mutations, Kenneth Miller says that quantum level fluctuations can result in chance mutations. I haven’t personally verified this claim, but I believe he is a knowledgable enough guy that he knows what he is talking about. In my opinion, it is possible that God used the inherent properties of quantum mechanics to result in chance mutations, and that he produced the laws of chemistry and physics to occassionally allow a beneficial mutation with natural selection selecting out the negative mutations.
Now I guess the question that comes from this is whether God knew what the outcome would be if the universe isn’t deterministic. If God exists outside of time, there may be some room for explanation how he might know the outcome of chance events logically “before” he created it. Then again, whenever we speak about God existing outside of time, we are bound to get into numerous paradoxes that are beyond my comprehension, and often result in logical contradictions. Nevertheless, even if God didn’t know the final outcome, he designed into the chemical makeup of the universe the ability for complex species to evolve. Or, perhaps in spite of these probabilities, he knew that humans would evolve. I don’t have it all figured out.
More direct to your intended question, I think we are discovering more and more how complex reality is. I agree that the bacterial flagellum is extraordinary, and I think our intuition of design is warranted by observing the amazing powers of the flagellum. The question in my mind is whether nature is so advanced that it can produce such things, or if it isn’t advanced enough to explain such things. I lean more towards the conclusion that things like the flagellum show how advanced nature is. The more advanced nature is, the more we have to look at the question of why nature is so advanced.
So if the question is reformulated the way I put it, I am not convinced that nature is not powerful enough to produce complexity and diversity of life. I don’t think there is enough information to show that God has indeed tinkered in life. Again, I’m not against the possibility that he did, but theologically speaking, I find it more compelling that if God could do all the tinkering at the beginning, he would do so.
paulbrand, thanks. I agree that it is really a design vs. design question. What a simple way of stating what has taken so many words to get to! What it really comes down to, then, is figuring out whether there can ever be an objective and scientifically credible way to infer design as being more probable than chance. Duh, of course that is what it comes down to, but what strikes me as surprising from the TEs that I hear is how very often they express incredulity and mocking contempt for the very notion that design can be detected. I have heard Ken Miller (on the radio? TV? don’t remember where, really) saying with near disgust in his voice what a pathetically poor example of design the human eye is. I understand that material nature has many instances of what appear to us to be inefficient or piecemeal designs, and I have no doubt that this results from the necessities of the density of Matter, vs. spirit or form. The medium must be made to express the concept, and the limits of the medium cannot be overcome. I just shudder when I hear ostensibly religious people express such contempt for the obvious brilliance in the natural world in the name of protecting the purity of science from incursion by religion! THat is an aside, though, a rant. To the point, though is the question I tried to ask you in my previous post, but not clearly enough: do you think, as a TE that higher qualities, such as soul or spirit, are emergent properties of matter? This is a huge dilemna for the TE position if the wonders of nature are seen to be the result of the material mechanisms of the physical universe alone, which in spite of their grandeur are finite. The human body, for example, will die. If consciousness is an emergent property of the interactions of chemistry and physics, then that consciousness will end when the complex system which supports it breaks down at death. however, if matter must be infused with information or a higher substance ‘the breath of life’ , then matter is more like a cloak, or garment which houses consciousness but does not give rise to it or limit its duration. Just wondering about your thoughts on this.
Hi Tina,
Allow me to quote your question, and what you see as the implication before I respond:
“Do you think, as a TE that higher qualities, such as soul or spirit, are emergent properties of matter?”
“If consciousness is an emergent property of the interactions of chemistry and physics, then that consciousness will end when the complex system which supports it breaks down at death.”
I think this is a very thought-provoking question and point.
I am unable to explain through nature how my consciousness was formed or even describe what consciousness is using natural properites. I have to claim to be rather unknowledgable in the subject area. Without much knowledge, I’m unable to see a necessary conflict between TE and consciousness. All I can say is that perhaps there is a non-physical component in us that is created for each of us individually. The way I see it, TE is based on what we observe in nature, not the unobservable. I’m a little hesitant to say much on the subject with a lot of certainty, but I do see the validity of your question. I am a theist, and not a deist, so I believe that God is personally active in our lives, and that may mean that he intervenes in nature every so often. Thinking back to what I have said before, there may appear to be a contradiction here. Perhaps I can clarify by saying that if God can get the desired result through his initial design, he wouldn’t intervene later on. God’s interventions, as I see them, are contingent on human volitional choices.
—-
Regarding the human eye problem. The objection TEists may bring is that if God is specifically intervening for this particular problem, perhaps he could have come up with a better design. I think they may be right that the eye isn’t perfect. But I do think what we have is rather marvelous, and indicates the power inherent in nature itself.
–
Regarding the suggested tone of people like Miller, I’ve gotten a different sense, but he has said a lot more than I am aware of. I did get the sense that Miller is one of the more likable evolutionists out there. Far better than Richard Dawkins, or Barbara Forrest, or a few others. On the other side we have Michael Ruse and Eugenie Scott, who seem to come across rather pleasantly to me. Reading Miller’s transcript at the Dover trial, I became impressed with his communication abilities, and his abilities as an educator. I’m also impressed that he would take away from his textbooks the idea that evolution is without direction (or something like that). But, to the extent that Miller’s words are hostile, I think they are counter-productive. If he is right, some frustration may be understandable, but exhibiting frustration is not usually helpful.
When I hear theistic evolutionists criticize other theistic points of view, I like to hear what they have to offer for the case for theism. Miller does do that in “Finding Darwin’s God” when he discusses cosmological fine-tuning. But, I would like to see more TEers suggest more as I have been doing that the complexity and diversity we see in life does indicate design, albeit a little more indirectly.
Hi again Saxe,
Whether or not a mutation is beneficial (assuming it’s not lethal or silent) is determined by the environment. Fit creatures are ones that propagate their genes. Please let me know if this isn’t what you were asking.
Tina,
I didn’t get a chance to respond to your earlier comments, and I wanted to pick up on one thing:
I agree that we are often too eager to dismiss the thoughts of those who came before us. I also think the ancients were on to something that we have minimized, but I see it a bit differently. They used to think that God or gods were responsible for bringing the rain to water their crops, for making the crops grow, for allowing them to conceive and give birth to healthy children, and many other things that today we call “natural”. I understand your perspective to be that God’s messengers are directly involved in at least some of these things. My perspective is that God is involved in what nature does, due to how he made it, how he sustains it, and what purposes he has for it. So, I think there is real truth in the biblical claim that God provides our daily bread, for example, even if how we earn our bread does not defy any natural laws.
As to whether God delegates some of his creative work to other beings, I have no strong opinion (though I did enjoy the first part of Tolkien’s Silmarillion that illustrates such an approach).
Scott,
I have to admit that I didn’t read the roughly 200 pages of material you linked to in order to counter one paragraph I wrote. I don’t want to get into a link war, and I’m sure you’re well aware of the other side of all the issues you raised. In the interest of not burying a very interesting theological conversation in the same arguments for and against IC/CSI that you can easily find elsewhere, I’m going to leave that be.
What is your own view? For instance, how did chickens evolve from those toothed, beakless ancestors? Do you think that a designer (or designers) is injecting new components into organisms over time? How can you show that this designer is the same one who created the universe, and if you can’t, what theological benefit is there to the argument? If there is no theological benefit, what other benefit do you see in it?
Thank you for the last half of that, but I’m again going to take issue with the characterization of my views as “Darwinian”. I don’t know how you define the term, but probably you have a fairly benign definition, such as relating to Darwin’s formulation for evolution based on natural selection. However, especially in an ID blog, that is not the way the term is typically understood. Many see it as an epithet as vitriolic as calling someone a baby-eater. For instance, in the recent post about liquid water on Saturn’s moon, another ID advocate defined the term as follows:
Darwinists are “stuck on stupidâ€Â. They seem interested in only one thing–that life arose without any help from any sort of God and that therefore there is no God, period. That’s it. That’s all they really care about. If there’s no God, then THEY are the smartest molecules in the Universe: if there is, well, the opposite is true. What a sad way to live.
Do you see why I object to it? I don’t think anything happens in nature apart from God. I’m not out to prove there is no God. I don’t think that mine are the smartest molecules in the universe. I would really appreciate it if you could refrain from using such charged words that mean radically different things to different parts of the audience here.
If the universe is a game of chess, ID seems intent on pointing to a chessmaster through looking for illegal moves. I think the legitimate moves are better testimony to the existence of a chessmaster.
How is biological ID not an attempt to find a flaw or limitation? I do accept interventions. For instance, natural processes do not allow water to spontaneously turn into wine or long-dead bodies to become alive again. Those are limitations. God’s intervention overcame those limitations in certain situations. Biological ID seems to be about claiming that natural processes in general are far more limited than most scientists believe, and then going about looking for places where intervention would have needed to occur.
I’m not against intervention. I believe in miracles. I just don’t think the biological ID argument has chosen good places to look for them. And worse, I think the movement is causing a lot of people to dismiss God’s work entirely because what is being touted as the best evidence of design hasn’t been able to withstand criticism.
Illegal moves? Hardly. They are moves that reveal planning, intention, and purpose. Your understanding of ID is shallow and the “evidence” has indeed withstood criticism. -ds
Hi Dave,
Goodbye, Mercury.